As you all likely know, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has been under immense pressure from the Bush administration to resign due to his failures to form a unified government after the successful December elections. As the Times reported in its lead paragraph: “Under intense domestic and American pressure, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari dropped his bid to retain his job on Thursday, removing a major obstacle to forming a new government during a time of rising sectarian violence.” Paragraph two was just as optimistic: “Leaders from each of Iraq's main factions — Sunni Arab, Shiite and Kurd — called the decision a breakthrough.” So was paragraph three: “‘I believe that we will succeed in forming the national unity government the people are waiting for,’ Adnan Pachachi, the acting speaker of Parliament, said at a news conference at the Convention Center inside the fortified Green Zone.”
Amazing. Three opening paragraphs of positive news about Iraq – on the front page no less. When’s the last time that happened at The Times?
Of course, it wasn’t all positive, as paragraph four demonstrated: “But while Mr. Jaafari's capitulation after two months of resistance could indeed resolve the stalemate, daunting political challenges lie ahead. Leaders are battling over high-level posts, and a new government will need to revive a moribund civil sector and inspire confidence in public leadership.” Yet, this was an accurate assessment of what al-Jaafari’s departure means, for though it is certainly good news, no one should believe this is a panacea.
Yet, maybe more astonishing than the tone and placement of this front-page article was an editorial by The Times staff dittoing such optimistic sentiments over this announcement in a piece appropriately titled “A Glimmer of Hope in Iraq.” It began: “Ibrahim al-Jaafari's agreement yesterday to step aside and let his Shiite bloc consider a new nominee for prime minister should finally break the stalemate that has been paralyzing Iraqi politics since last December's parliamentary election.” After accurately making it clear this decision did not ensure success in Iraq, the editorial fairly projected the upside:
“A new prime minister will at least have a chance to make a fresh start and begin undoing some of the costly mistakes Mr. Jaafari has made since taking office last April. These include, most prominently, his willingness to allow sectarian militias, death squads and torturers to infiltrate the security services and his failure to insist on professional management of the oil industry and other essential economic sectors. Iraq's hopes for democracy, and even its existence as a single nation, could probably not have survived a second Jaafari term.”
Conspicuously absent from this piece was any blame for the current situation in Iraq on the Bush administration. Instead, after outlining who might be al-Jaafari’s successor, the editorial simply ended: “A new start is desperately needed.”
If only this represented a new start to the way The Times is going to cover this war. Regardless, nice job, folks.
